linux-kernel - Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200701020242.l022g4Qc018451@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:42:04 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Trent Waddington <trent.waddington@...il.com>,
	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...mix.at>,
	Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com>,
	Giuseppe Bilotta <bilotta78@...pop.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said:

> That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
> about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on
> with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would
> work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents
> on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone
> else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where
> software patents are generally not valid.
> 
> The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything
> that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or
> licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be
> worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares.

Hey, I started out *up front* pointing out they can't open-source the
drivers because some of the IP is other people's, didn't I? :)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped